Democratic senators, filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday, looked as if they'd seen a ghost.

"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.).

"I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson (Neb.). "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters -- an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.).

"Ask her after lunch," offered Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines. But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire.

In a sense, they were. The cause of so much evasion was S. Res. 398, the resolution proposed Monday by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) calling for the censure of President Bush for his warrantless wiretapping program. At a time when Democrats had Bush on the ropes over Iraq, the budget and port security, Feingold single-handedly turned the debate back to an issue where Bush has the advantage -- and drove another wedge through his party.

So nonplused were Democrats that even Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), known for his near-daily news conferences, made history by declaring, "I'm not going to comment." Would he have a comment later? "I dunno," the suddenly shy senator said.

Republicans were grateful for the gift. The office of Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) put a new "daily feature" on its Web site monitoring the censure resolution: "Democrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0."

Many of Feingold's Democratic colleagues agree that Bush abused his authority with the NSA spying program. And they know liberal Democratic activists are eager to see Bush censured, or worse. But they also know Feingold's maneuver could cost them seats in GOP states.

Hence the elaborate efforts to avoid comment. Five Democratic senators called a news conference yesterday to talk about the Bush budget's "dangerously irresponsible priorities" -- but three of them fled the room before allowing questions. The other two were stuck.

"Was it a good idea for Senator Feingold to bring up this resolution?" came the first question, from CNN's Ed Henry.

"He brings up some very important issues," Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) ventured.

Henry was unsatisfied. "So do you support censure, or not?

Stabenow took another stab. "It needs to have hearings," she said.

Mary Landrieu (La.) pursed her lips. "Senator Feingold has a point that he wants to make," she said. "We have a point that we want to make, talking about the budget."

"Senators," an aide interrupted, "we need to go."

Next in the Senate TV gallery came Schumer. An aide hung up a poster showing a port. The senator called the ports situation "extremely troubling." The aide hung up a poster of an Exxon cartoon. "Obscene profits," decreed Schumer, equally passionately.

Outside the Democrats' lunch downstairs, the senators were similarly agile. The number two Democratic leader, Richard Durbin (Ill.), darted out of an elevator and into lunch when he thought nobody was looking.

"I haven't made any judgment," said Jeff Bingaman (N.M.). Two minutes later, he reappeared. "I will support an alternative that would call for an investigation," he amended.
The one Democrat happy to talk was Feingold, who, in a pre-lunch chat with reporters, seemed to enjoy his colleagues' squirms. "I'm concerned about the approach Democrats are taking, which is too often cowering," he said.

Feingold, seeking liberals' support for the 2008 presidential nomination, said he wasn't motivated by politics. But then he slipped. "If there's any Democrat out there who can't say . . . the president has no right to make up his own laws, I don't know if that Democrat really is the right candidate," he said of his likely primary opponents.

After an hour of closed-door negotiations, Democrats were no closer to resolving the Feingold rift.

"Most of us feel at best it's premature," announced Sen. Christopher Dodd (Conn.). "I don't think anyone can say with any certainty at this juncture that what happened is illegal."

Dodd must not have checked with Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa). "The president broke the law and he needs to be held accountable," he said. "Talk about high crimes and misdemeanors!" Harkin said he'll vote for the Feingold resolution -- if it comes up.

That gives Feingold two solid votes, including his own. The rest: avowedly undecided.

Reporters, as instructed, asked Reid where he stood. "It's a question that's been asked 33 times in the last few hours," he said. "And so, for the 34th time, I'm going to say the same thing: I'm going to wait . . .''

Censure, my ass,. They got every lawyer in town looking for something even remotely impeachable.

Click to expand...

Censure him for what? Obeying the law? In 2002, the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court) ruled that Bush had the authority to perform warantless wire taps per Section II of the United States Constitution.

Of course, Feingold doesn't know that, that's why he authored the Campaign Finance Reform Act which violates the First Amendment.

My guess is the honorable Feingold didn't do too well in High School Social Studies (and probably still wouldn't if he were asked to try)

Censure him for what? Obeying the law? In 2002, the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court) ruled that Bush had the authority to perform warantless wire taps per Section II of the United States Constitution.

Of course, Feingold doesn't know that, that's why he authored the Campaign Finance Reform Act which violates the First Amendment.

My guess is the honorable Feingold didn't do too well in High School Social Studies (and probably still wouldn't if he were asked to try)

Click to expand...

If you're trying to look good for elections you don't have to tell the truth.

First, stop trying to think about this rationally for a moment and think about it through the eyes of a DUmmie. The DUmmies and the Kos Kidz are the base of the Democratic party. And DUmmies and Kos Kidz don't really care about success. In fact, they hate success. They idolize Jimmeh Cahduh, the worst one-termer in history. They elected Howard the Scream Dean, who won one state in the primary, to lead their party. They hate every corporation that has ever turned a profit and latch onto Air America, the only radio network that has to pay local affiliates to stay on the air. "Success" is not registering to these people, it's not on their minds.

The kooks just want everyone else in the Democratic party to act as kooky as they are. The Dark Shroud of Christian theocracy is about to descent oe'r the land...and frankly they are astounded that nobody but themselves can see it. They see themselves as dissenters to Hitler in 1930's Germany. You see, these are college kids, and college kids who never really grew up. Their heads are filled with glorious struggles to Change the World and Speak Truth to Power. Unfortunately for them women already have rights, blacks can already vote, and it's illegal to stone gays to death. So desperate are they to take a valiant stand that they are reduced to inventing wrongs to right. They are not looking at any situation objectively, they are looking at it through the prism of "How can I act like a revolutionary"?

Bringing this back to Feingold: He's only listening to his kook base. The kook base does not care about winning. Winning would actually disapoint them, because then they couldn't act like martyrs about to be hauled away to Alaskan gulags. They don't care about electoral strategy one iota, because they are convinced the government is about to be overthrown by a military junta anyhow, if it's not already run by a Halliburton shadow-government.

Think I'm exaggerating a little? Hop on over to democraticunderground.com and tell me everything there is not written with these things in mind. America is an evil nation and must be stopped. Osama bin Laden had legitimate grievances. Americans overreacted to 9/11 and allowed Dictator Bush to seize power. They honestly believe these things, you can clearly tell.

This is why I'm not buying into these theories about the Dems storming back into power. They are in shambles.

It looks like they are going for impeachment. It'll never happen without a Democrat majority. But with the GOP looking at 2008 instead of 2006, a string of democrat upsets are not farfetched. I hope this doesn't happen. But if the dems get the house. President Bush will be impeached in the first 100 days.

It looks like they are going for impeachment. It'll never happen without a Democrat majority. But with the GOP looking at 2008 instead of 2006, a string of democrat upsets are not farfetched. I hope this doesn't happen. But if the dems get the house. President Bush will be impeached in the first 100 days.

Click to expand...

Of course, when you read the article you can't help but notice the "Impeach Bush and Cheney" ads that surround it. I can't help but wonder if all this talk about impeachment isn't just wishful thinking on the Democrats' part.

Just when you think the Democrats can't stoop lower, just when you think the Democrats can't make themselves look more foolish, then they turn around and surprise you. Of course, they are doing the bidding of their owners. By "owners" I refer to those radical fringe groups that are richer than Midas and financing the Democrats' campaigns, i.e. the George Soroses and moveon.orgs of the world. When you consider it is they, rather than the average citizen, who are the Democrats' bread and butter, you quickly come to realize why the Democrats act as they do. The Democrats aren't as out of touch as we may all have been lead to believe. Instead of representing the interests of the voters who put them in Congress, the Democrats are representing the interests of groups with no wish to see the Constitution either defended or upheld.

I'd like to know what Bush did to warrant an impeachment. Warantless wiretapping is entirely within his powers under FISA. His detractors are confusing the meaning of the 4th amendment, either deliberately or by sheer ignorance of that amendment's intent. That amendment is for criminal cases, not for cases involving national security. In 2002, a FISC judge ruled (in "re: Sealed Case") that the President has the power to conduct warantless wiretaps per Article II of the Constitution and furthermore, without the authorization of Congress. That is because Article II of the Constitution puts the Executive Branch, not Congress, in charge of the armed forces.

"Armed Forces" and "National Defense" have nothing to do with criminal cases. The 4th amendment, on the other hand applies to criminal cases only.

I'd like to know if perhaps this isn't some sort of political power grab by the Democrats in Congress for the Executive Branch's clearly mandated Constitutional authority regarding matters of National Defense.

And I'd like to know if all this talk of censure and political maneuvering by the Democrats at the cost of national security isn't itself grounds for impeachment hearings against Feingold, Boxer, Harking and others for high crimes and misdemeanors. Frankly, I'd like nothing better than to watch them tried for treason, high crimes and misdemeanors on C-SPAN then sent away for life to some God forsaken prison.

I'd like to reiterate a point I made in a previous post that Senator Feingold, that source of knowledge on what is and isn't permitted under the Constitution, himself authored a piece of legislation that clearly violates the First Amendment. I refer to the "Campaign Finance Reform Act". That act limits the right to free political speech as granted in the First Amendment. This is the same sagacious fellow who is now educating the rest of us bumpkins on the meaning of the 4th Amendment.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!